Why Gun Control (Or Gun Banning) Will Never Work

I've pretty much stayed away from the whole gun control issue because there is so much controversy over the issue. However, I feel the need to state the obvious.

Some people say stricter gun laws will mean less shootings. Some say the answer is simply banning guns altogether. Well that's just a brilliant idea, isn't it? Come to think of it, anytime we've made stricter laws on things they've always gotten better.

Take the ban on alcohol for instance. NOW that is a good one. The success was absolutely paramount! Oh! I almost forgot! The ban on drugs has been tremendously successful.....well, at least these have been good if you don't count the fact that they started huge black markets that put criminals in control of them.

(End sarcasm)

To me it is blatantly clear what will happen if we keep implementing stricter gun laws. A black market that already exists will grow exponentially. Whether we like it or not, there is a demand for guns. This means no matter what laws we put on them, people will get them and use them anyway. Buying things on the "black market" is often times much easier, and that is the direction we are taking guns.

History seems to make it clear that when the government regulates or bans something, the criminals come crawling out and capitalize on their stupidity.

We need to stop fighting a battle we cannot win.

Solong

it wont work cause there is already like a billion guns floating around out there both registered and not.
i am not for banning gun and i am also not a fanatic.
still though, in the states it is disturbing how quick and easy it is to get your hands on a pistol.
it is because there are so many out there. yeah you need to pass the fed check to get a pistol from a store or have one transferred in from some website.
there is nothing to stop anyone from hitting gun shows or buying from private owners. the country is saturated with them

a reply to: TinySickTears

I agree with that. My point is that more regulations won't do anything to stop shootings. I actually believe they could make matters worse by pointing people to the black market for guns.

a reply to: solongandgoodnight

Gun control should not mean total gun ban, you are right.

a reply to: solongandgoodnight

I agree, but not to worry the states are striking a lot of gun control off the books. We now have 4 or 5 states where no license is needed to carry a gun, I think there are about 12 more getting ready to do the same.

And the courts have been ruling pro 2A for some time now, the pendulum is and has been swinging the other way for some time now.

The gun control battle has been lost for the anti gun crowd.. lets hope it stays that way.

originally posted by: solongandgoodnight
a reply to: TinySickTears

I agree with that. My point is that more regulations won't do anything to stop shootings. I actually believe they could make matters worse by pointing people to the black market for guns.

i dont see how much of anything could make it worse.
just like booze, weed, heroin, etc etc, if people want to get their hands on a gun they will. laws or no.
it does not help that there are so many guns floating around out there.
there has to be millions of thefts and unregistered/unrecorded sales every year.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: solongandgoodnight
a reply to: TinySickTears

I agree with that. My point is that more regulations won't do anything to stop shootings. I actually believe they could make matters worse by pointing people to the black market for guns.

i dont see how much of anything could make it worse.
just like booze, weed, heroin, etc etc, if people want to get their hands on a gun they will. laws or no.
it does not help that there are so many guns floating around out there.
there has to be millions of thefts and unregistered/unrecorded sales every year.

No doubt about that.

It seems fairly evident to me that most firearm legislation is only observed by the law-abiding citizens. The people who create events that spur such legislation have already -- for the most part -- demonstrated their lack of accord with the legislation/control.

Short answer -- agree with the OP.

People who want more gun control never ask how many people were killed because of it..

Why not a comprise that appeals to both sides of the argument, Slightly stricter guns laws against those mentally unfit to use firearms, while giving a wider range of freedoms to those capable of responsibly owning a legal firearm? Meaning ban those who are clearly mentally ill and those who are not should be allowed to Open carry and Conceal carry with very little to no government regulation. Let the responsible firearm owners self-regulate.

Does that not seem fair? or is any sort of regulation of any kind a ridiculous proposal to make.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
Why not a comprise that appeals to both sides of the argument, Slightly stricter guns laws against those mentally unfit to use firearms, while giving a wider range of freedoms to those capable of responsibly owning a legal firearm? Meaning ban those who are clearly mentally ill and those who are not should be allowed to Open carry and Conceal carry with very little to no government regulation. Let the responsible firearm owners self-regulate.

Does that not seem fair? or is any sort of regulation of any kind a ridiculous proposal to make.

We have all this already, except if you have any mental problem its no guns at all.

You're right, you are stating the obvious.

An outright ban won't work. Regulation can work, but will never work 100% of the time. Seizing on the small percentage of times it doesn't work and pointing to it as proof that more laws are needed is stupid.

But the debate will rage on because one side sees any kind of regulation as a sign of impending martial law and the other side sees any lack of regulation as a sign of impending anarchy.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

for me there is no easy answer
while i am a gun owner the idea of more people carrying does not sit well with me.
concealed or open. i just dont trust people.
just cause someone is law abiding and mentally fit today does not mean tomorrow they will not flip out.

i know i dont like the idea/argument of 'if more people had guns on them then these massacre situations would not happen'
i just dont agree.

for the most part i think it would be worse.

taking an 8 hour class and qualifying on a paper target at 15 yards does not mean a person is capable of settling a violent situation at planned parenthood.

plus there is the cowboy factor. lots of them out there.
i dont really want more bullets flying around my head

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: solongandgoodnight

Gun control should not mean total gun ban, you are right.

So basically you are saying you support a partial gun ban? As if you should have a say over what I can own. I guess you won't mind if I inflict a religion or reproductive choice on you then?

SNIPPED
Community Announcement re: Decorum

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
Why not a comprise that appeals to both sides of the argument, Slightly stricter guns laws against those mentally unfit to use firearms, while giving a wider range of freedoms to those capable of responsibly owning a legal firearm? Meaning ban those who are clearly mentally ill and those who are not should be allowed to Open carry and Conceal carry with very little to no government regulation. Let the responsible firearm owners self-regulate.

Does that not seem fair? or is any sort of regulation of any kind a ridiculous proposal to make.

I have no problem with that at all.

a reply to: TinySickTears

I'm not necessarily stating that people who don't own firearms should have greater access and more freedoms. Those who have proven themselves repeatedly to be upstanding gun owners and law abiding citizen's should be allowed to Open carry or conceal carry in public places with no problem from government agents and law enforcement. With the exception, a private business and private property owner's policies on firearms should be respected regardless of your feelings on the matter.

I concur, I don't think purely more guns is the solution either for the same reasons you mentioned.

Although I think for newbies looking to get their hands on a firearm should be put through a more rigorous psychological test. To prove that they are responsible and mature enough to own and use a firearm. But there's is no guarantee that this will significantly reduce shootings at all, as Wildb mentioned some states already have something like this in place.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Although I think for newbies looking to get their hands on a firearm should be put through a more rigorous psychological test. To prove that they are responsible and mature enough to own and use a firearm.

Sounds good on paper but this would be very dangerous in the long term. Who will decide for you, slippery slope to say the least.. 2A is a right not a privilege and it cannot be aloud to become a privilege because if it does all our rights will and then what will we have....Nothing.

a reply to: solongandgoodnight

The people at the top that want guns banned know thats impossible. What they really want is to remove guns as much as possible from the hands of private citizens.

Everything they say about limiting private ownership of firearms is directed at that one goal, as emotionally as possible.

a reply to: intrptr

The people at the top that want guns banned know thats impossible. What they really want is to remove guns as much as possible from the hands of private citizens.

Yes until there all gone...